CASE BRIEF Colinares vs. People of the Philippines

7/24/2019 CASE BRIEF Colinares vs. People of the Philippines

1/8

A CASE BRIEF ON JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE,

MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE

AND STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION OF

PD 968 (THE PROBATION LAW)

Subm!!"# b$%

R&'!" *+ C-&, LLB . I

Au/u0! 1, 1234


2/8

661 SCRA 165 194 December 13, 2011

G+R+ N&+ 381578

ARNEL COLINARES,Petitioner

- versus -

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINESRespondent

FACTS OF THE CASE%

The public prosecutor of Camarines Sur chared the accused !rnelColinares "!rnel# $ith frustrated homicide before the Reional Trial Court"RTC# of San %ose, Camarines Sur&

Complainant Ru'no P& (uena "Ru'no# testi'ed, that at around )*00 inthe evenin on %une 2+, 2000, he and %esus Paulite "%esus# $ent out to buciarettes at a nearb store& n their $a, %esus too. a lea. b the roadside$ith Ru'no $aitin nearb& /rom no$here, !rnel snea.ed behind and struc.Ru'no t$ice on the head $ith a hue stone, about 1+ inches in diameter&Ru'no fell unconscious as %esus ed&

!nanias %allores "!nanias# testi'ed that he $as $al.in home $henhe sa$ Ru'no lin b the roadside& !nanias tried to help but someonestruc. him $ith somethin hard on the riht temple, .noc.in him out& elater learned that !rnel had hit him&

Paciano !lano "Paciano# testi'ed that he sa$ the $hole incident sincehe happened to be smo.in outside his house& e souht the help of abarangay tanodand the brouht Ru'no to the hospital&

Dr& !lbert (ellea issued a 4edico-5eal Certi'cate sho$in thatRu'no su6ered t$o lacerated $ounds on the forehead, alon the hairlinearea& The doctor testi'ed that these in7uries $ere serious and potentiallfatal but Ru'no chose to o home after initial treatment&

The defense presented !rnel and Diomedes Paulite "Diomedes#&!rnel claimed self-defense& e testi'ed that he $as on his $a home thatevenin $hen he met Ru'no, %esus, and !nanias $ho $ere all 8uite drun.&!rnel as.ed Ru'no $here he supposed the 4aor of Tiaon $as, but ratherthan repl, Ru'no pushed him, causin his fall& %esus and !nanias thenbo9ed !rnel several times on the bac.& Ru'no tried to stab !rnel but missed&

The latter pic.ed up a stone and, defendin himself, struc. Ru'no on thehead $ith it& :hen !nanias sa$ this, he chared to$ards !rnel and tried tostab him $ith a a6& !rnel $as able to avoid the attac. and hit !nanias $iththe same stone& !rnel then ed and hid in his sister;s house& nSeptember


3/8

Diomedes testi'ed that he, Ru'no, %esus, and !nanias attended a pre-$eddin part on the niht of the incident& is three companions $ere alldrun.& n his $a home, Diomedes sa$ the three enaed in heatedarument $ith !rnel&

n %ul 1, 200+ the RTC rendered 7udment, 'ndin !rnel uiltbeond reasonable doubt of frustrated homicide and sentenced him to

su6er imprisonment from t$o ears and four months ofprisioncorreccional,as minimum, to si9 ears and one da ofprisionmayor, as ma9imum& Sincethe ma9imum probationable imprisonment under the la$ $as onl up to si9ears, !rnel did not 8ualif for probation&

!rnel appealed to the Court of !ppeals "C!#, invo.in self-defenseand, alternativel, see.in conviction for the lesser crime of attemptedhomicide $ith the conse8uent reduction of the penalt imposed on him&

The C! entirel a?rmed the RTC decision but deleted the a$ard for lostincome in the absence of evidence to support it& @ot satis'ed, !rnel comesto this Court on petition for revie$&

An the course of its deliberation on the case, the Court re8uired !rneland the Solicitor Beneral to submit their respective positions on $hether or

not, assumin !rnel committed onl the lesser crime of attempted homicide$ith its imposable penalt of imprisonment of four months of arrestomayor,as minimum, to t$o ears and four months of prision correccional, asma9imum, he could still appl for probation upon remand of the case to thetrial court&

(oth complied $ith !rnel ta.in the position that he should beentitled to appl for probation in case the Court metes out a ne$ penalt onhim that ma.es his o6ense probationable& The lanuae and spirit of theprobation la$ $arrants such a stand& The Solicitor Beneral, on the otherhand, arues that under the Probation 5a$ no application for probation canbe entertained once the accused has perfected his appeal from the

7udment of conviction&

LEGAL ISSUES PRESENTED%

1& :hether or not !rnel acted in self-defense $hen he struc.Ru'no on the head $ith a stone

2& !ssumin he did not act in self-defense, $hether or not !rnel isuilt of frustrated homicide and

3& Biven a 'ndin that !rnel is entitled to conviction for a lo$ero6ense and a reduced probationable penalt, $hether or not he ma stillappl for probation on remand of the case to the trial court&

DECISION OF THE COURT

The Court PARTIALLY GRANTSthe petition, MODIFIESthe Decision"$ith a vote of -)# dated %ul 31, 200) of the Court of !ppeals in C!-B&R&CR 2EF3E, FINDS petitioner !rnel Colinares GUILTY beond reasonabledoubt of attempted homicide, and SENTENCES him to su6er anindeterminate penalt from four months of arrestomayor, as minimum, to

=3>


4/8

t$o ears and four months ofprisioncorreccional, as ma9imum, and to paRu'no P& (uena the amount of P20,000&00 as moral damaes, $ithoutpre7udice to petitioner applin for probation $ithin 1+ das from notice thatthe record of the case has been remanded for e9ecution to the Reional TrialCourt of San %ose, Camarines Sur, in Criminal Case T-2213&

=


5/8

RATIONALE OF THE DECISION

ne& !rnel claims that Ru'no, %esus, and !nanias attac.ed him 'rstand that he merel acted in self-defense $hen he hit Ru'no bac. $ith astone&

:hen the accused invo.es self-defense, he bears the burden of

sho$in that he $as leall 7usti'ed in .illin the victim or inictin in7ur tohim& The accused must establish the elements of self-defense b clear andconvincin evidence& :hen successful, the other$ise felonious deed $ouldbe e9cused, mainl predicated on the lac. of criminal intent of the accused

ere, the lo$er courts found that !rnel failed to prove the element ofunla$ful aression& e alone testi'ed that %esus and !nanias rained 'stblo$s on him and that Ru'no and !nanias tried to stab him& @o onecorroborated !rnel;s testimon that it $as Ru'no $ho started it& !rnel;sonl other $itness, Diomedes, merel testi'ed that he sa$ those involvedhavin a heated arument in the middle of the street& !rnel did not submitan medical certi'cate to prove his point that he su6ered in7uries in thehands of Ru'no and his companions

T&+ (ut iven that !rnel, the accused, $as indeed the aressor,$ould he be liable for frustrated homicide $hen the $ounds he inicted onRu'no, his victim, $ere not fatal and could not have resulted in death as infact it did notG

The main element of attempted or frustrated homicide is theaccused;s intent to ta.e his victim;s life& The prosecution has to prove thisclearl and convincinl to e9clude ever possible doubt reardinhomicidal intent& !nd the intent to .ill is often inferred from, amon otherthins, the means the o6ender used and the nature, location, and numberof $ounds he inicted on his victim&

ere, !rnel struc. Ru'no on the head $ith a hue stone& The blo$$as so forceful that it .noc.ed Ru'no out& Considerin the reat sie of his

$eapon, the impact it produced, and the location of the $ounds that !rnelinicted on his victim, the Court is convinced that he intended to .ill him&

The Court is inclined, ho$ever, to hold !rnel uilt onl of attempted,not frustrated, homicide& An Palaganas v. People, $e ruled that $hen theaccused intended to .ill his victim, as sho$n b his use of a deadl $eaponand the $ounds he inicted, but the victim did not die because of timelmedical assistance, the crime is frustrated murder or frustrated homicide& Afthe victim;s $ounds are not fatal, the crime is onl attempted murder orattempted homicide

Ru'no had t$o lacerations on his forehead but there $as noindication that his s.ull incurred fracture or that he bled internall as a resultof the poundin of his head& The $ounds $ere not so deep, the merelre8uired suturin, and $ere estimated to heal in seven or eiht das&

Ta.en in its entiret, there is a dearth of medical evidence on recordto support the prosecution;s claim that Ru'no $ould have died $ithouttimel medical intervention& Thus, the Court 'nds !rnel liable onl forattempted homicide and entitled to the mitiatin circumstance of voluntarsurrender&

=+>


6/8

T""+ rdinaril, !rnel $ould no loner be entitled to appl forprobation, he havin appealed from the 7udment of the RTC convictin himfor frustrated homicide&

(ut, the Court 'nds !rnel uilt onl of the lesser crime of attemptedhomicide and holds that the ma9imum of the penalt imposed on himshould be lo$ered to imprisonment of four months of arresto mayor, as

minimum, to t$o ears and four months of prision correccional, asma9imum& :ith this ne$ penalt, it $ould be but fair to allo$ him the rihtto appl for probation upon remand of the case to the RTC&

(ut, 'rstl, $hile it is true that probation is a mere privilee, the pointis not that !rnel has the riht to such privilee he certainl does not have&:hat he has is the riht to appl for that privilee& The Court 'nds that hisma9imum 7ail term should onl be 2 ears and < months& Af the Court allo$shim to appl for probation because of the lo$ered penalt, it is still up to thetrial 7ude to decide $hether or not to rant him the privilee of probation,ta.in into account the full circumstances of his case&

Secondl, it is true that under the probation la$ the accused $hoappeals Hfrom the 7udment of convictionI is dis8uali'ed from availin

himself of the bene'ts of probation& (ut, as it happens, t$o 7udments ofconviction have been meted out to !rnel* one, a conviction for frustratedhomicide b the reional trial court, no$ set aside and, t$o, a conviction forattempted homicide b the Supreme Court&

Af the Court chooses to o b the dissentin opinion;s hard position, it$ill appl the probation la$ on !rnel based on the trial court;s annulled

7udment aainst him& e $ill not be entitled to probation because of thesevere penalt that such 7udment imposed on him& 4ore, the SupremeCourt;s 7udment of conviction for a lesser o6ense and a lihter penalt $illalso have to bend over to the trial court;s 7udmentJeven if this has beenfound in error& !nd, $orse, !rnel $ill no$ also be made to pa for the trialcourt;s erroneous 7udment $ith the forfeiture of his riht to appl for

probation& Ang kabayo ang nagkasala, ang hagupit ay sa kalabaw "thehorse errs, the carabao ets the $hip#& :here is 7ustice thereG

DISSENTING OPINION% Written by Justice Martin S. Villarama, Jr.

HA 7oin the ma7orit in rulin that petitioner should have beenconvicted onl of the lesser crime of attempted homicide and that thema9imum of the indeterminate prison term imposed on him should belo$ered to four months of arresto maor, as minimum, to t$o ears andfour months of prision correccional, as ma9imum& o$ever, A disaree$ith their conclusion "b -) vote# that on rounds of fairness, the Courtshould no$ allo$ petitioner the riht to appl for probation upon remandof the case to the trial court&

A submit the follo$in principles $hich should be controllin on thepresent issue*

1& Probation bein a mere privilee, this Court ma notrant as relief the reconition that accused-appellantma avail of it as a matter of riht&

=F>


7/8

2& The probation la$ is not a penal statute and thereforethe principle of liberal interpretation is inapplicable&

The ma7orit reasoned that since the trial court imposed a "$ron#penalt beond the probationable rane, thus deprivin the accused of theoption to appl for probation $hen he appealed, the element of

speculation that the la$ souht to curb $as not present& @otin that theaccused in this case claimed that the evidence at best $arranted hisconviction onl for attempted, not frustrated homicide, the ma7orit opinedthat said accused had, in e6ect, souht to brin do$n the penalt as toallo$ him to appl for probation&

A cannot concur $ith such proposition because it see.s to carve outan e9ception not found in and contrar to the purpose of the probationla$&

The pronouncement in rancisco that the discretion of the trial courtin rantin probation is to be e9ercised primaril for the bene't oforanied societ, and onl incidentall for the bene't of the accused,underscored the paramount ob7ective in rantin probation, $hich is the

reformation of the probationer& This not$ithstandin, the ma7oritsuests that remorse on the part of the accused is not re8uired, or leastirrelevant in this case because Hthe Court cannot e9pect petitioner to feelpenitent over a crime, $hich the Court no$ 'nds, he did not commitI, ashe onl committed attempted homicide&

At must be stressed that in foreclosin the riht to appeal hisconviction once the accused 'les an application for probation, the Stateproceeds from the reasonable assumption that the accused;s submissionto rehabilitation and reform is indicative of remorse& !nd in prohibitin thetrial court from entertainin an application for probation if the accused hasperfected his appeal, the State ensures that the accused ta.es seriouslthe privilee or clemenc e9tended to him, that at the ver least he

disavo$s criminal tendencies& Conse8uentl, this Court;s rant of relief toherein accused, $hose sentence $as reduced b this Court to $ithin theprobationable limit, $ith a declaration that accused ma no$ appl forprobation, $ould diminish the seriousness of that privilee because in8uestionin his conviction accused never admitted his uilt& At is of nomoment that the trial court;s conviction of petitioner for frustratedhomicide is no$ corrected b this Court to onl attempted homicide&Petitioner;s phsical assault on the victim $ith intent to .ill is unla$ful orcriminal "/#'"00 & "!" !" 0!/" & :&mm00&; 0u0!!"# & !!"m-!"# &;'$+ !llo$in the petitioner the riht toappl for probation under the reduced penalt losses over the fact thataccused;s availment of appeal $ith such e9pectation amounts to the samethin* speculation and opportunism on the part of the accused in violationof the rule that appeal and probation are mutuall e9clusive remedies&

The ponencia then declares that the 8uestion in this case isultimatel one of fairness, considerin the trial court;s erroneousconviction that deprived petitioner of the riht to appl for probation, from$hich he had no $a of obtainin relief e9cept b appealin the 7udment&

=)>


8/8

Such liberalit accorded to the accused, for the reason that it $as nothis fault that the trial court failed to impose the correct sentence, ismisplaced&

At is settled that the Probation 5a$ is not a penal statute& An thematter of interpretation of la$s on probation, the Court has pronouncedthat Hthe polic of liberalit of probation statutes cannot prevail aainst

the cateorical provisions of the la$&I An applin Sec& < of P&D& @o& EF tothis and similar cases, the Court must carefull tread so as not to diressonto impermissible 7udicial leislation $hereb in the uise ofinterpretation, the la$ is modi'ed or iven a construction $hich isrepunant to its terms& !s oft-repeated, the remed lies in the leislatureand not 7udicial 'at&I

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CASE

The case is sini'cant due to the follo$in1& The case presents a dilemma on $hether or not a person acted

in self-defense, and $hether the acts committed b the person are 7usti'edin vie$ of the factsKevidences athered&

2& Throuh this case the court also delineated the di6erencebet$een frustrated and attempted homicide& The latter bein the decision ofthe court overturnin that previousl rendered b the RTC and appellatecourt&

3& An this case, a sini'cant dilemma on ho$ the PD EF or theProbation la$ should be construed taking into account the !ullcircumstances o! this case&

"he #uestion in this case is ultimately one o! !airness. $s it !air todeny Arnel the right to apply !or probation when the new penalty that the

%ourt imposes on him is, unlike the one erroneously imposed by the trialcourt, sub&ect to probation'

CASE BRIEF Colinares vs. People of the Philippines

Documents

Transcript of CASE BRIEF Colinares vs. People of the Philippines